FOIA Project Annotation: After a thorough review of the case law and legislative history, a federal court in New York has ruled that the way in which the Bureau of Land Management arrives at its estimates of fair market value for coal leases in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming is protected by Exemption 5 (privileges), but because there is no real competition for the coal leases, information provided by the coal mine operators is not protected by Exemption 4 (confidential business information). And if that is not enough, the court also ruled that Exemption 9 (data on wells) does not cover drill holes. The Natural Resources Defense Council requested the BLM appraisals for coal leases in the Powder River Basin, which because of its lower production costs and lower sulfur content makes up about 40 percent of the coal mined in the United States. The land is owned by the federal government and under the Mineral Leasing Act the government is required to lease the land at fair market value. In response to the NRDC's request, BLM redacted most of the appraisal reports, claiming they were protected by both Exemption 4 and Exemption 5, and that drill holes were also protected under Exemption 9. The NRDC argued that the information was not protected by Exemption 4 because there was no real competition for coal leases. Indeed, of 28 coal lease sales conducted during the past 20 years, BLM had received only one bid for 23 sales and two bids for the other five sales. Because of the huge investment in infrastructure and heavy equipment to operate such mines, new leases were typically awarded to companies already operating adjacent or nearby mines. Mine operators actually nominated tracts for potential leases based on both coal content and proximity to an existing mine. However, since there was no actual marketplace competition, BLM argued that its determination of fair market value under the Mineral Leasing Act was the crucial factor in deciding the price and terms for a lease. Because the Mineral Leasing Act allowed the agency to disclose exploration data after the award of a lease, the NRDC argued the records were not protected by Exemption 4. But Judge Paul Engelmayer disagreed. He noted that "the Mineral Leasing Act and its implementing regulations do not require the Government to release exploration data." He added further that "the Government has submitted a sworn declaration stating, as a factual matter, that none of the redacted information was based on drilling conducted by a mining company under an exploration license." The NRDC also questioned whether the information had actually been "obtained from a person" as required under Exemption 4. While acknowledging that the agency's initial Vaughn index was sparse, Engelmayer found that a subsequent affidavit from the Minerals Appraiser for BLM's Wyoming office clarified the matter. Engelmayer observed that "BLM invoked Exemption 4 to withhold mining company data underlying its analysis, but it did not invoke Exemption 4 to withhold BLM's analysis itself. For that, BLM invoked Exemption 5." But Engelmayer was not persuaded that the agency had shown the existence of any competitive harm from disclosure. He pointed out that "this lack of competition, is, in fact, the fulcrum of the Government's invocation of Exemption 5, in which it seeks to withhold its methodology for determining fair market value, on the ground that the Government's internal calculation of fair market value, rather than a competing bid, is in fact the benchmark that a bidding mining company must exceed." Calling affidavits from mining companies on the issue of competitive harm "speculative," Engelmayer observed that "the Government does not anywhere explain concretely how access to the mining companies' bidding information would be useful to a competitor in setting prices or to customers in negotiating. The information concerning operating costs or coal pricing largely comes from mines that were leased years ago. It is unclear why competitors or customers would rely on such old data, which at most provides thin circumstantial evidence as to how, today and in the near future, the company at issue might seek or be willing to price its coal." Engelmayer also rejected the agency's claim that disclosure would impair its ability to get similar information in the future. He noted that "BLM's notion that the mining companies, like the proverbial little boy who takes his ball and goes home when he does not get his way, will cease to bid from Powder River Basin leases, is unsubstantiated and unlikely." Although Engelmayer found Exemption 4 did not protect the information to the extent sought by the agency, he agreed that the confidential commercial information privilege contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) (now codified at 26(c)(1)(G)) applied and that the information was protected under Exemption 5. The NRDC argued that while the Supreme Court in Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340 (1979), had ruled that Rule 26(c)(7) qualified under Exemption 5, it had also ruled that the privilege was temporal in nature and ended when the need for confidentiality expired. Thus, the NRDC contended that under Merrill the privilege for the awarded appraisal data was no longer applicable. Engelmayer, however, noted that the NRDC was over-interpreting the Merrill decision by insisting that the privilege had an expiration date. Instead, he pointed out that to the extent BLM could show that the confidentiality of its appraisal data was still necessary the agency could still invoke the privilege. Engelmayer explained that the Supreme Court's reference to the temporal nature of the privilege "was instead keyed to the familiar, paradigmatic, multi-bidder competitive bidding context that the Supreme Court was addressing, in which the post-bidding release of historical bid information should pose no threat to the Government's interests." Instead, he explained that in awarding coal leases "more that 80% of the time there is only one bidder, the mining company with adjacent land, for whom economies of scale and convenience give it a virtually prohibitive inside track on the nearby lease. In that situation, the Government's private assessment of fair market value, informed by its own metrics, work-product, experience, and data, is the only relevant competition. In this context, the Government's rationale for protecting this information would not necessarily expire as soon as the contract is awarded. Far from it." He observed that "FOIA does not require BLM to release its pricing model or its fair market value estimates derived from the same model where doing so would enable the coal company neighboring the next tract up for lease to peg its bid strategically to the government's floor. FOIA does not require that the Government be thus deprived of its ability to secure a good deal fro the taxpayer." Because of the scarcity of any Exemption 9 cases, any case that interprets Exemption 9 is unique for no other reason. Indicating that Exemption 9 protected data about wells, Engelmayer noted that "wells are not used to extract solid matter such as coal; they are used to extract liquids or gases." He pointed out that "simply put, there is no basis on which to conclude that the word 'wells' can also refer to drilling holes used to extract coal. Significantly, the Government concedes that Exemption 9 was enacted to protect oil companies, not coal companies."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Competitive harm, Exemption 9 - Data on wells, Exemption 5 - Privileges

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has ruled that the Bureau of Land Management has shown that disclosure of qualitative data pertaining to the agency's methodology for setting a fair market value for coal leases in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is protected by Exemption 5 (privileges). In an August, 2014 ruling in a case brought by the NRDC, Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that since the vast majority of 28 leases have involved single bidders and the rest attracted only two bidders the agency's statutory mandate to receive fair market value is determinative of the lease amount. But while Engelmayer found the quantitative data for appraising the leases was protected by the privilege covering governmental economic interests, the agency had not yet shown that qualitative data was privileged as well. Based on supplemental affidavits filed by the agency, Engelmayer noted that "BLM uses a common qualitative methodology to estimate the fair market value of each tract of land. Disclosure of fully unredacted reports would reveal the factors that BLM considers at each stage of the valuation process, how its appraisers evaluate those factors, and the weight each factor is given. . .Although courts have sometimes required the Government to disclose single factors relevant to multi-factor analyses, NRDC has not identified, and the Court has not found, authority that would require the Government to disclose every factor it considers and its method for evaluating those factors." Engelmayer pointed out that "some of the salient information is identical for every fair market value estimate. . .Because this data remains static across reports, at least for some period of time, disclosure would provide bidders with the exact information BLM will use to estimate fair market value for future lease sales." NRDC argued that some of the information was commercially stale. But Engelmayer observed that "that characterization, even if accurate, does not preclude the information from Exemption 5 protections. As long as BLM relies on such information, disclosure will harm the Government's commercial interests." He agreed with the agency's argument that the qualitative and quantitative data was inextricably intertwined. He explained that "the appraisers consider 'both quantitative and qualitative factors' in the course of a unified analysis. . .Moreover, access to qualitative narratives in unredacted reports would allow prospective bidders to determine at least some of the numeric figures BLM uses to reach its fair market value estimates."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Waiver of privilege

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Christine S. Poscablo dated 3/18/2013 re: I write respectfully to request a brief adjournment of the initial pretrial conference until the next available date. The conference is currently scheduled for April 8, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. I have a mediation scheduled for that same day in another case pending before Your Honor, Pfunk v. Cohere Communications, LLC, No. 12 Civ. 8971 (PAE), which may not be completed by 2:00 p.m. This is the Government's first request for an adjournment of the pre-trial conference, and Plaintiff consents to the request. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. The conference is rescheduled for April 9, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. (Initial Conference set for 4/9/2013 at 04:00 PM before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/19/2013) (djc) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

2013-03-20

7

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Bureau of Land Management served on 2/13/2013, answer due 3/6/2013; United States Department of Interior served on 2/13/2013, answer due 3/6/2013. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A to Affidavit of Service of Summons and Compl., # 2 Exhibit Ex. B to Affidavit of Service of Summons and Compl., # 3 Exhibit Ex. C to Affidavit of Service of Summons and Compl., # 4 Exhibit Ex. D to Affidavit of Service of Summons and Compl.)(Forsyth, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

2013-03-22

8

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference served on United States Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management on March 21,2013. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc.. (Forsyth, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

STIPULATION AND ORDER: IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties that: 1. By June 5, 2013, Defendants will process and release non-exempt records for the NARO North and West Antelope II lease sales that are responsive to NRDC's September 21, 2012 FOIA request. 2. By June 5, 2013, with respect to each redaction or withheld record for the NARO North and West Antelope II lease sales, Defendants shall produce a Vaughn index which will (1) identify the record or portion of the record withheld, including the author, recipient, date, and a description of the contents of the record, to the extent applicable; (2) identify the specific exemption asserted as a basis for withholding the record; and (3) provide a particularized explanation of why the asserted exemption applies. The explanation may be part of the description rather than a separate entry. 3. By June 5, 2013, Defendants shall provide an explanation of their search methodology for records for the NARO North and West Antelope II lease sales that are responsive to NRDC's September 21, 2012 FOIA request. Such explanation shall state at a minimum the type of search performed, the scope of the search, and aver that all files likely to contain responsive materials were searched. 4. By July 5, 2013, NRDC will notify Defendants, by e-mail to the agency contact person designated by Defendants, of any objection(s) to any redaction(s) or withholding(s) of any document(s) or to the adequacy of Defendants' search. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any challenges NRDC raises. 5. Within 30 days of receipt of NRDC's objections, Defendants will make a final determination as to their redaction(s) and withholding(s) and to the adequacy of their search. 6. Following NRDC' s receipt of Defendants' final determination, the parties will either (1) stipulate to a production schedule for the remaining documents responsive to NRDC's September 21, 2012 FOIA request; or (2) propose to the Court a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment. 7. Regardless whether or to what extent further litigation ensues, NRDC reserves its right to seek attorneys' fees under 5 U.S.C. section 552(a)(4)(E). (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 5/8/2013) (djc) Modified on 5/8/2013 (djc). Modified on 5/8/2013 (djc). Modified on 5/9/2013 (djc). (Entered: 05/08/2013)

2013-08-23

10

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Elizabeth Forsyth and Christine S. Poscablo dated 8/21/2013 re: Pursuant to Chamber's Rule 3(H), the parties hereby notify the Court that they wish to move for summary judgment in this case. Because the parties agree that this case can be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment, and have also agreed on a proposed briefing schedule, the parties do not believe a pre-motion conference is necessary. If the Court wishes to schedule a pre-motion conference, counsel are available on any date, except during the week of August 26, 2013. The Court's review is governed by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552. The cross-motions for summary judgment will concern FOIA exemptions 4,5, and 9 and the adequacy of Defendants' Vaughn Index. The parties respectfully propose the following briefing schedule: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment: September 11, 2013. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opp'n to Plaintiff's Motion: October 9, 2013. Plaintiff's Reply and Opp'n to Defendants' Cross-Motion: November 6, 2013. Defendants' Reply: November 20, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. The schedule set forth above is approved. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/22/2013) (djc) Modified on 8/23/2013 (djc). (Entered: 08/23/2013)

2013-08-23

Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 10/9/2013. Motions due by 9/11/2013. Responses due by 11/6/2013. Replies due by 11/20/2013. (djc) (Entered: 08/23/2013)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/26/2013 Replies due by 12/10/2013. (djc) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

2013-10-29

22

CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. Responses due by 11/26/2013(Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

2013-10-29

23

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

2013-10-29

24

DECLARATION of Steven Hageman in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

DECLARATION of Michael Lepchitz in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

2013-10-29

28

DECLARATION of David J. Finnerty in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

2013-10-29

29

DECLARATION of Brad Clark in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

DECLARATION of Scott N. Durgin in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Christine S. Poscablo dated December 4, 2013. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior.(Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 12/04/2013)

2013-12-05

36

ORDER: granting 35 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 35 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Christine S. Poscablo dated December 4, 2013. Responses due by 12/17/2013. Replies due by 1/10/2014. The request for this briefing schedule is granted. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/4/2013) (djc) Modified on 12/5/2013 (djc). Modified on 12/6/2013 (djc). (Entered: 12/05/2013)

2013-12-16

37

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Christine S. Poscablo dated December 16, 2013. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior.(Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 12/20/2013. Replies due by 1/15/2014. (djc) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

2013-12-20

39

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, in the Alternative, for Discovery . Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 12/20/2013)

DECLARATION of Steven Hageman in Support re: 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 12/20/2013)

ORDER: On January 15, 2014, the parties completed briefing on their cross-motions for summary judgment. Oral argument on these pending motions is set for February 7, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2014 at 09:00 AM before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/16/2014) (tn) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer: Oral Argument held on 2/7/2014 re: 39 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 28 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 34 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 15 Declaration in Support of Motion, 31 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 16 Declaration in Support of Motion, 12 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, 25 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 23 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 42 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 13 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement, 27 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 46 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 14 Rule 56.1 Statement, 26 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 29 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment., 40 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 41 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 17 Declaration in Support of Motion,, 30 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 24 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 33 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. The Court's decision is reserved. (Court Reporter Melisa Mormile) (Hummel, June) (Entered: 02/07/2014)

2014-03-05

54

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 2/7/2014 before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Melissa Mormile, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/31/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/10/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2014.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

2014-03-05

55

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 2/7/2014 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

OPINION & ORDER #104587 re: 32 FIRST MOTION for Discovery In the Alternative Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. 22 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. As to FOIA Exemptions 4 and 9, NRDC's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Government's motion for summary judgment is denied. As to FOIA Exemption 5, NRDC's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety, and the Government's motion for summary judgment is granted in part, and as further set forth in this document. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/6/2014) (cd) Modified on 8/11/2014 (ca). (Entered: 08/06/2014)

2014-08-19

60

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ellen Melissa London on behalf of Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (London, Ellen) (Entered: 08/19/2014)

2014-08-22

61

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time with respect to briefing required by Court's August 5, 2014 Opinion and Order addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Christine S. Poscablo dated August 22, 2014. Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior.(Poscablo, Christine) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

2014-08-25

62

MEMO ENDORSED ORDER granting 61 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: In light of Plaintiff's consent, the deadline for Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby moved from September 4, 2014, to September 29, 2014. Plaintiff will submit its cross-motion for summary judgment by October 14, 2014. Defendants will submit their reply by October 21, 2014, and Plaintiff will submit its reply by October 28, 2014. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/25/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

2014-08-25

Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 10/14/2014. Motions due by 9/29/2014. Replies due by 10/28/2014. (ajs) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

ORDER: granting 64 Motion to Enforce Judgment. The Court has received plaintiff's letter-motion filed September 15, 2014, Dkt. 64, and defendants' response filed September 22, 2014, Dkt. 67. Plaintiff requests, by September 29,2014, "(1) all information the Government has withheld under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions 4 and 9 that is segregable from information withheld under Exemption 5 and (2) updated Vaughn indices and redactions." Dkt. 63, at 1. Defendants represent that they "are in the process of carefully reviewing all of the Exemption 5 withholdings" in light of the Court's August 6, 2014 ruling, and are willing to provide, by September 29, 2014, any reasonably segregable Exemption 4 or 9 material that is not also covered by Exemption 5. Dkt. 67, at 2. The parties thus do not appear to have any material dispute as to the discrete issue raised by plaintiffs recent letter-motion. The Court therefore grants plaintiff's requests and directs defendants to produce these documents, if any, by September 29, 2014. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 64. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 09/25/2014) (djc) Modified on 9/25/2014 (djc). (Entered: 09/25/2014)

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 78 Letter filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Defendants may re-file their submissions by October 23, 2014. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 10/21/2014) (djc) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

2014-10-21

81

ORDER re: 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Government's Withholding of Qualitative Analyses Under FOIA Exemption 5 . filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., The parties are hereby directed to appear for argument on the pending motion for summary judgment on November 26, 2014, at 9:00a.m., in Courtroom 1305 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007.( Oral Argument set for 11/26/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1305, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 10/20/2014) (djc) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding FOIA Exemption 5 Withholdings . . Document filed by Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of Interior. (London, Ellen) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Selena K. Kyle to RE-FILE Document 87 Response in Support of Motion. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents. (db) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer: Oral Argument held on 11/26/2014 re: 85 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 74 MOTION for Discovery on Government's Withholding of Qualitative Analyses Under FOIA Exemption 5 . filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Government's Withholding of Qualitative Analyses Under FOIA Exemption 5 . filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 76 Declaration in Support of Motion,, filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 75 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 81 Order, Set Hearings,,,, 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding FOIA Exemption 5 Withholdings . filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 89 Letter, filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 84 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 86 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 83 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 77 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 88 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. Court's decision reserved. (Court Reporter Sabrina D'Emidio) (Hummel, June) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

OPINION & ORDER re: 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Government's Withholding of Qualitative Analyses Under FOIA Exemption 5 . filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding FOIA Exemption 5 Withholdings . filed by United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby grants the Government's motion for summary judgment as to the FOIA Exemption 5 claims. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/11/2014) (djc) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

CLERK'S JUDGMENT: It is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated December 11, 2014, the Court hereby grants the Government'smotion for summary judgment as to the FOIA Exemption 5 claims; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 12/12/2014) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal, # 2 Right to Appeal)(km) (Entered: 12/12/2014)